Thompson v. RJD CF Warden et al

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID A. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES S. HILL, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS [Dkt. Nos. 22, 42, 43, 59,
61]
and
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
AS MOOT
[Dkt. No. 48]
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court are several motions by Plaintiff: Motion for Early Discovery to Identify
Doe Defendant, Motion for Good Cause Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4),
Motion to Locate Defendant Under Seal, Motion to Request Update on Named Defendants,
and Motion to Substitute Party and Request U.S. Marshal Service. Dkt. Nos. 22, 42, 43,
59, 61.
The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion for Good Cause (Dkt. No. 42) as a motion
for leave to file a third amended complaint. Additionally, the Court construes Plaintiff’s
Motion to Request Update on Named Defendants (Dkt. No. 59) as a request for U.S.
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 10

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Marshal service upon G. Galvan and D. Van. For the reasons stated below, these two
motions are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s remaining motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
Given the possibility of a superseding pleading, and as set forth more fully below,
the undersigned further RECOMMENDS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No 48]
be DENIED AS MOOT.
I.
BACKGROUND
A. 	Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and
State Prison (SATF-SP) in Corcoran. Dkt. No. 44, Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s
claims arise from his treatment while incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility
(RJDCF). Id. at ¶ 2, 3.
Plaintiff was transferred to RJDCF on March 17, 2023, and he was placed in a shared
cell with inmate Lemm. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff has a medical condition that causes chronic
fecal incontinence, and he frequently has to get up during the night to bathe himself and
clean his sleeping area. Id at ¶ 4-5. These nighttime disruptions caused repeated threats and
physical fights between Plaintiff and Lemm. Id. Plaintiff asked correctional officers to
move cells multiple times, and they refused his requests. Id. at ¶ 8.
On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff had spinal surgery at an outside hospital. Id. at
¶ 10. After surgery, Plaintiff returned to his cell with Lemm for one night, but on September
16, 2023, Plaintiff was relocated to a single cell on the lower tier because his surgery
prohibited him from going up stairs. Id. at ¶11-14. Plaintiff stayed in a single cell for the
remainder of his time at RJDCF. Id. at ¶ 85.
On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed two requests seeking single cell status based
on his incontinence: an ADA Reasonable Accommodation Request and a Healthcare 602
Grievance. Id. at 18-19. Both requests were denied, concluding that no intervention was
needed. Dkt. No. 44-2 at 6; Dkt. No. 44-1 at 13. Plaintiff alleges that false statements were
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 10

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
made by the officials who evaluated his requests and argues that his incontinence should
have justified single cell status. Dkt. No. 44 at ¶ 26-59.
On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff was transferred to SATF-SP, where he is currently
incarcerated. Id. at ¶ 86. At SATF-SP, Plaintiff had a single cell until March 13, 2025,
when he was required to take a cellmate. Id. Plaintiff’s first cellmate at SATF-SP, inmate
Dalton, caused no conflict. Id. at ¶ 88. However, Plaintiff’s current cellmate has threatened
Plaintiff’s life. Id. at ¶ 91.
Plaintiff brings suit against the correctional officers who denied his informal
requests to move cells at RJDCF and the officials who evaluated and denied his requests
for single-cell status.
B. 	Procedural History
Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on February 22, 2024. Dkt. No. 1. On December
23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 14. The First Amended
Complaint named the State of California, the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, and fourteen individual defendants, including “ADA Sergeant/John Doe
Named in RAP Response who came to Plaintiff’s Door.” Id. at 2.
On May 27, 2025, Judge Michael M. Anello, then the presiding District Judge,
screened the First Amended Complaint and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the named
defendants, noting that Plaintiff must identify the John Doe ADA Sergeant, amend the
complaint, and request U.S. Marshal service for the claim against John Doe ADA Sergeant
to proceed. Dkt. No. 18 at 9, fn. 4. Between July and September 2025, all named defendants
waived service. Dkt. Nos. 23-32, 35-37, 39, 45.
On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Early Discovery to Identify Doe
Defendant, seeking to identify the John Doe ADA Sergeant. Dkt. No. 22. Between July 14,
2025, and September 2, 2025, Defendants gave Plaintiff a copy of the Interim
Accommodation Procedure/Interview Worksheet, which was completed after Plaintiff
filed his ADA request. Dkt. No. 42 at 1. This worksheet was signed by G. Galvan, Sergeant,
and Van, SSA. On September 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Good Cause Under
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 10

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), explaining that through the worksheet, he learned
that the John Doe ADA Sergeant was G. Galvan. Id. Additionally, the worksheet revealed
the identity of Van, SSA, a person who Plaintiff had not known was involved in the denial
of his request. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff sought to substitute G. Galvan for the John Doe
ADA Sergeant and add Van, SSA as a defendant. Id. at 2.
On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No.
44. The Second Amended Complaint names the same defendants as the First Amended
Complaint but substitutes G. Galvan in the place of the John Doe ADA Sergeant. Id.
On October 13, 2025, all defendants except for G. Galvan filed a motion to dismiss.
Dkt. No. 48. The motion seeks to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint as to all
defendants except for the two correctional officer defendants, A. Gardner and M. Castro.
Id. at 9, fn. 2. The motion notes that G. Galvan has yet to be served. Id. at 11, fn. 3.
On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Request Update on Named
Defendants. Dkt. No. 59. Plaintiff states that in October 2025, he attempted to file a motion
to request U.S. Marshal service on G. Galvan but never received the paperwork. Id. at 2.
Additionally, he explains that on October 31, 2025, Defendants gave him information
further identifying Van, SSA, as D. Van, ADA Analyst. Id. Thus, Plaintiff seeks to add D.
Van as a defendant and direct U.S. Marshal service on both D. Van and G. Galvan. Id. On
December 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Substitute Party and Request Marshal
Service. Dkt. No. 61. Once again, Plaintiff requests that the U.S. Marshal serve both G.
Galvan and D. Van. Id. at 3.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. 	Motion for Early Discovery to Identify Doe Defendant [Dkt. No. 22]
Plaintiff filed this motion seeking early, limited discovery to identify the John Doe
ADA Sergeant named in the First Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 22. As discussed above,
the John Doe ADA Sergeant was identified as G. Galvan by the Interim Accommodation
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 10

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Procedure/Interview Worksheet, which Defendants provided to Plaintiff. Because the
identity of John Doe is known, the motion is DENIED as moot.
B. 	Motion for Good Cause Under F.R.C.P. 16(b)(4) [Dkt. No. 42]
Plaintiff filed this motion on September 8, 2025, seeking to add D. Van as a
defendant. Dkt. No. 42. Plaintiff explains that he did not know that D. Van was involved
in evaluating his ADA accommodation request until he received the Interim
Accommodation Procedure/Interview worksheet. Id. at 1. Van completed step 1 of the
Interim Accommodation Assessment, finding that Plaintiff’s request did not raise issues
that may cause him injury or other harm while the request was being processed. Id. at 10.
Plaintiff believes that Van’s statement was false, leading to the denial of interim
accommodations. Id. at 2-3.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) concerns modification of a scheduling
order and does not apply here given that no scheduling order has issued yet. However, the
Court has an obligation to “liberally construe” a pro se party’s pleadings. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)1. Accordingly, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s
Motion for Good Cause Under Rule 16(b)(4) as a motion for leave to amend the complaint
to add D. Van as a defendant.
1. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Rule 15(a)(2) directs that “[t]he court should freely give leave
[to amend a pleading] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “In exercising its
discretion” whether to allow a party to amend, the Court “must be guided by the underlying
purpose of Rule 15 – to facilitate decision on the merits rather than on the pleadings or
technicalities.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus,
while leave to amend is not guaranteed, it “should be granted with extreme liberality.”
Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must be especially
1 Unless otherwise noted, all citations are omitted, and in direct quotes, all internal
quotation marks, brackets, ellipses and footnotes are omitted, and all emphasis is added.
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 10

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
generous permitting a pro se plaintiff to amend his or her pleadings. See Ramirez v. Galaza,
334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003). Considering the liberality espoused by the Federal
Rules, the Court should not deny a motion to amend “unless amendment would cause
prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.”
Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
1999); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
2. Application
The Court begins with the “presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave
to amend.” Eminence Cap. LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)
(emphasis in original).
The Court turns to the “countervailing considerations [of] undue delay, prejudice,
bad faith, [and] futility.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Serv., 80
F.4th 943, 956 (9th Cir. 2023). The Court finds nothing in the record to support a finding
of bad faith or undue delay. Although it is unclear exactly when Plaintiff obtained the
Interim Accommodation Procedure/Interview Worksheet, Plaintiff waited at most forty-
five days after learning of Van’s involvement to request to add him as a defendant.
Considering Plaintiff’s incarceration and pro se status, this does not constitute undue delay.
Likewise, the Court cannot find Defendants would be prejudiced by the amendment. The
case is in its early stages, and discovery has not yet commenced.
Further, Defendants have not shown that granting leave to amend would be
improper. On October 24, 2025, the Court ordered Defendants to respond with their
position on Plaintiff’s Motion for Good Cause. Dkt. No. 52. Defendants’ response
improperly characterized the motion as a “Motion for Early Discovery” to determine the
identity of “Van SSA,” despite Plaintiff’s clear request to add Van as a defendant. Dkt. No.
56. Defendants argued that the motion should be denied as moot, as they had sent Plaintiff
a letter identifying Van more fully. Id.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his complaint is
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint by not later than March 2, 2026.
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 10

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is advised that his amended complaint will supersede the current complaint, which
means that the amended complaint must be complete on its face without reference to the
prior pleading. As such, the Third Amended Complaint must include all causes of action
against all named defendants. The Third Amended Complaint must also comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 in all respects, meaning “each claim and the involvement
of each defendant must be alleged; ... [and] must include a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought.” Turley v. Lezano, No.
3:22-CV-1719-GPC-DDL, 2023 WL 3727939, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2023) (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3)).
C. 	Motion to Locate Defendant Under Seal [Dkt. No. 43]
After the Court directed U.S. Marshal service of the named defendants in the First
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff received notice that they were unable to serve defendant L.
Schobelock, who was on leave and receiving workers’ compensation. Dkt. No. 43. On
September 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion seeking to obtain the last known address of
L. Schobelock so that she could be served. Id. at 2. However, L. Schobelock had already
waived service on August 8, 2025. Dkt. No. 35. Additionally, L. Schobelock appeared in
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 48. Because service of L. Schobelock is not
needed, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
D. 	Motion to Request Update on Named Defendants [Dkt. No. 59]
Plaintiff filed this motion on November 17, 2025. Dkt. No. 59. Plaintiff explains that
he attempted to request U.S. Marshal service upon G. Galvan but never received the
paperwork. Id. at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff explains that he now knows Van’s identity in
greater detail as D. Van, ADA Analyst. Id. Plaintiff asks to name D. Van as a defendant
and for the Court to order service upon both G. Galvan and D. Van. Id. at 3.
Because the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Good Cause, construed as a motion
for leave to amend, this motion is DENIED IN PART AS MOOT. To the extent Plaintiff
requests that the Court order U.S. Marshal service upon G. Galvan, the motion is
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 10

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GRANTED. To the extent Plaintiff requests service upon D. Van, the motion is
GRANTED, subject to D. Van being named as a defendant in the Third Amended
Complaint.
E. 	Motion to Substitute Party and Request Marshal Service [Dkt. No. 61]
Plaintiff filed this motion on December 8, 2025. Plaintiff requests that the U.S.
Marshal serve both G. Galvan and D. Van. Id. at 3. Because these requests are raised in
Plaintiff’s Motion to Request an Update on Named Defendants and addressed above, this
motion is DENIED as moot.
F. 	Recommendation Regarding Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 48]
Rather than expend judicial resources resolving a Motion to Dismiss that pertains to
a superseded complaint, the Court finds the interests of judicial economy would be best
served by requiring Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. See
De Souza v. Dawson Tech., Inc., No. 21-CV-1103 JLS (MSB), 2022 WL 3006045, at *4
(S.D. Cal. July 28, 2022) (finding the “[p]arties’ and the Court’s resources” would not be
well spent “deciding a Motion to Dismiss that is potentially obviated by” a forthcoming
amendment to the complaint). For these reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS
Defendants’ motion to dismiss be DENIED AS MOOT. The undersigned further
RECOMMENDS that Defendants be ordered to respond to Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint, whether by responsive pleading or renewed motion, within 21 days of the entry
of the Third Amended Complaint on the docket.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 10

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court:
1. DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Early Discovery to Identify Doe
Defendant [Dkt. No. 22].
2. GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Good Cause Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 16(b)(4) [Dkt. No 42], construed as a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff must
file the amended complaint by March 2, 2026. Plaintiff shall title the document
“Third Amended Complaint.”
3. ORDERS Plaintiff to serve upon Defendants a copy of the Third Amended
Complaint.
4. GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Update on Named Defendants
[Dkt. No. 59] and DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint, once it is filed, upon Defendants G. Galvan and D. Van, and
forward it to Plaintiff along with two blank U.S. Marshal Form 285s. Additionally,
the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with certified copies of the Third Amended
Complaint and the summons so that he may serve these defendants. Plaintiff must
complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, include an address
where each named Defendant may be found and/or subject to service, and return
them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides.
5. DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Locate Defendant Under Seal [Dkt. No.
43].
6. DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Party and Request Marshal
Service [Dkt. No. 61].
7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule 72.3, the undersigned
Magistrate Judge respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District Judge DENY AS
MOOT Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 48] and order Defendants to
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 9 of 10

24-cv-357-TWR-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
respond to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, if one is filed, within 21 days of its
entry on the docket.
Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Court and
served on all parties by February 5, 2026. The document should be titled
“Objections to Report and Recommendation.” A party who fails to timely object
may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court's order. See
Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 20, 2026
Hon. David D. Leshner
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00357-TWR-DDL Document 66 Filed 01/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 10 of 10